INTPs as designers

[Absurdity]

I know that the INTP archetype (and indeed, a forum member's username) is the "Architect," but I have always read that in a metaphorical sense. INTPs devise abstract, theoretical systems, which explains why so many of us gravitate toward designing software. My question then is how would an INTP fare at designing more concrete things, such as buildings and cars and iPhones.

I would think that these fields of design (industrial design, architecture, landscape design, etc.) would be better fits for XNTJs, with Ni serving to provide inspiration and Te for actualization. My own ENTJ uncle was on track to become an architect before he got distracted and wound up becoming a successful entrepreneur and CEO. S types may even have an edge since they wouldn't get bogged down in the details.

What do you think? Can INTPs design well?

 

[Kuu]

Yes.

What makes you think they couldn't?

 

[Hadoblado]

What aspect of design are you asking about?

If the product of design is measurable by objective means, then yes an INTP can certainly do it.

Stuff like interior design which require subjective taste and are more difficult to put into abstract terms however, may be more difficult for us.

When you refer to 'concrete' things such as iphones and buildings, are you referring to the look of them or the functionality? If the archetype is 'architect' then surely buildings should be no problem!

 

[Architect]

Yes, I Am Architect.

And I play one in real life too. Software architect - I wouldn't recommend a civil architect, as has been discussed on these pages elsewhere. In my experience the two top pleasurable activities are one, learning a new system, and second, designing a new system. A recent example for me is a project I've been working on for five years, which is the architecture for (interestingly) a software program that helps design software architectures. So I've been working on how to design this system for years; it's enormously complicated and needs to work across different platforms, both for me building it and users using it on their software. Anyhow I finally figured out just the right solution - the right architecture, which makes the whole thing work. There are many ways to have done it, but this way is simple, clean and beautiful, and importantly means that a single person (me) can finish the project by myself. All other solutions, being clunky, would take too much work. Finding the solution was a complete high. So much that a week later I crashed, and it took a month before I could come back to it and keep going.

That's the juice I get from writing software. There is a lot of grunt work too which I'm not as fond of (I wish I had a team of young ISTJ engineers to boss around), but yes building systems (my definition of architecture) is a sublime pleasure for an INTP, and not a metaphor at all, including concrete systems. Software is concrete - 1's and 0's in the computer, and you have to take computer constraints into account.

Another example is my day job where I work on devices like the iPhone. Yes, lots of architecture and system building there too

 

[P.H.]

I'm studying for Interaction Design. It's a field where you design the user experience for digital media, such as websites or smartphone apps. In the work field I have to cooperate with programmers and visual designers. The interaction designers job is to structure the website, not just information architecture but also anticipate on mental models. So what "feels" natural for people and keeping consistency througout the website. When the interaction designer has built the framework for the website it gets passed on to the visual designers and programmers. The wireframes for visual design have less details and are only important as a rough sketch for the visual designer to work with. The ones for the programmers are highly detailed, because the programmer has to know exactly what functionality the website or app has to have and how it should "look". The detailed work can be a challenge for me because I tend to enjoy designing the big picture, but see the details as monotone and repetitive work. It's a nice challenge though.

What really interests me about interaction design is that it converges psychology and technology, and it requires one being able to see the big picture. It's the bridge between abstract concept and concrete application. So I guess it also fits the architect archetype.

 

[Absurdity]

Yes.

What makes you think they couldn't?

I don't know

 

[envirodude]

I'm a civil engineer by training. I actually taught in the Architectural Technology program at a community college. I suck at design, but am an excellent analyst. Would think sensors would be better at appreciating how a structure looks. I'm j/p balanced, if that matters.

 

[Kuu]

I'm actually soon to finish my architecture studies. I should have finished this may but bureaucracy is a bitch. I've written several rants on it in this forum in past times.

Design is actually very interesting and complex work involving lots of thought synthesizing knowledge of different systems into a coherent whole... I think it's quite well suited for an INTP. A good architect is multidisciplinary and must be part-engineer, part-historian, part-sociologist, part-artist, part-salesman, part-manager and part-philosopher. Some are even part-programmers. The more you know, the better.

In fact the hardest part in my experience is the people aspect: dealing with co-workers and clients, bureaucracy and of course, funding... all of them relatively common to other fields. And that's why you get an associate to do that for you. But design per se? That flows rather well.

Would think sensors would be better at appreciating how a structure looks.

If you think architecture's essence is about appreciating the look of structures... you've got a rather... limited understanding of what architecture is.

 

[envirodude]

If you think architecture's essence is about appreciating the look of structures... you've got a rather... limited understanding of what architecture is.

I never suggested such a thing. I just suggested an area where I thought sensors should have an advantage. So I consider your comment unfair, but not inaccurate. I've never studied architecture. However, I have heard the complaint from practising architects that what you do in the real world is often less noble than what you are taught in school. This was especially true of the "architectural technologists" I taught structural design to. It was an open secret that the title of the program was essentially marketing - high school students are drawn in by the mystique and opportunities for creative thought in Architecture. But all the jobs for grads were essentially civil engineering. By the way, I was very critical of my engineering education, as it seemed bent on ripping any creativity the students once had from their soul, so I'm in no way feeling superior. I bemoan the fact that, while we encourage and value creativity in youth, we systematically devalue it in adults. It will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the profession and the role of design in it as you move through your career.